I agree. I think the problem for most people, at least females, in our culture is that there is an assumption that they need to go together. Which I think can lead to lying to oneself.

But that's just the thing...my experience when I'm attracted to someone... I'm drawn to them... sex feels like an expression of that magnetic pull that feels (at least for me) physical and emotional...it's like the core of me wants to connect to the core of you...and then, so I guess, I don't get that other people don't experience it that way.

I'm wondering now if while girls are taught to suppress their sexual natures, boys are taugt to suppress their emotional natures?

Not sure if that's true these days but it certainly was when I was growing up.

Personal aside note to Ebon, I find your posts very interesting. I think, intellectually, I understand what you are saying about the freedom of casual sex. I admire people who are truly capable of it. for whatever reason, I'm not one of them. sex makes me feel attached. I'm not sure why.

And that's fine if that's what works for you. I'm not proposing anyone do anything they don't feel right with.

Girlchristian: Bristol Palin is 21 and had her child at 18. I'm in my thirties, so to me, she's still a kid.

But to the 12-year-olds having sex, she's an old maid. :P

Research has shown that teen girls who have been exposed to the foundation and its messages are more likely to view teen pregnancy and parenthood as stressful and negative, and they are more likely to be skeptical of the media's portrayal of teen pregnancy and parenting. They also think teens should wait longer to have sex than girls who are not aware of the foundation and its messages.

I can save you thousands of dollars by just having someone watch a parent or even parent themselves (even the fake kid that cries 24/7 makes an impact) for a day or two. Spending 8 hours a day with them made ME want to avoid parenthood like the plague. :)

The only real way to keep a young girl safe from pregnancy is for her to not have sex

Well, not according to Christianity, LOL. The Virgin Mary would like to have a talk to you. :P

solfeggio: Young people are going to have sex.

NOT all young people. I'm 33 and STILL a virgin.

I have a friend who is 27 and still a virgin, despite the fact that she's lost boyfriends because of it. My brother was 27 or so when he lost his virginity. I and a couple of my friends (all age 30-33) are currently abstaining until marriage. The argument that "young people are going to have sex" or that we, even as adults, must have sex in order to have fulfilling relationships is, IMO, innacurate.

I was a virgin until 22 -- practically considered shameful for an American boy. (In this culture, "getting laid" is really foisted as a requirement for manhood.)

It was partly standards, and partly a horrible, crippling shyness around girls/women when I was that age. I liked them so much, I would just lock up and not be able to say or do anything about it... LOL.

I'm wondering now if while girls are taught to suppress their sexual natures, boys are taugt to suppress their emotional natures?

Not sure if that's true these days but it certainly was when I was growing up.

Personal aside note to Ebon, I find your posts very interesting. I think, intellectually, I understand what you are saying about the freedom of casual sex. I admire people who are truly capable of it. for whatever reason, I'm not one of them. sex makes me feel attached. I'm not sure why.

And that's fine if that's what works for you. I'm not proposing anyone do anything they don't feel right with.

I consider myself lucky. My 11 year old twins (girls) think all that is gross, "twighlight would be good if there was more fighting and less, 'oh bella...oh edward...i can't live without you' stuff.

I'd agree with that although I still think the whole series would be improved by Buffy showing up and slaughtering everyone in sight. Yes, I hate Twilight.

Gonna have to still disagree with the concept of casual sex being foisted as "freedom." Especially for females. As I see it, it's just about the ultimate form of male domination. It's simply asking women to think like men -- at least in terms of the male's base sexual urges -- and act accordingly. Which is the ultimate male fantasy. Hardly "empowering" of females, or good for them, if you ask me. And not ultimately good for males either. If they are set free on what essentially amounts to an endless buffett of easy ass, they won't ever be able to develop their emotional side, I've seen it happen.

I do agree with you about Twilght, but good lord, don't let my wife and step-daughter know... they'd kill me... LOL!

Is there any truth behind the stereotype that men use love to get sex and women use sex to get love?

And if there is, is it biological or sociological... or some combination.

I don't know.

I think girls are given the message that finding love (a man) is the goal...because alone we're not enough... ride off into the sunset with the man who will...what...save you...from what... complete you... whatever.

the idea that women are to be taken care of by men is sunk deep into many people's psyches...It's not easy to get over.

Some of it is cultural.

But, also, I think some people are trying to make it way more complicated than it is.

Once again, as the one with the potential to get pregnant -- a woman has a lot more at stake when engaging in sex than a man does. Therefore women are, natrually, biologically, tuned more toward companion ship, and less toward just chasing orgasms for kicks.

And ultimately, I don't think it's about "needing a man to be complete" (that's the cultural thing, IMO). It's about it being far more advantagous to have a partner when dealing with the overhwhelming demands infants and children can put on you than not having a partner.

And again, the woman being the one for whom simply walking away from offspring will be more difficult, she has a lot more at stake in that regard.

As far as needing and completeness, I think everybody, man or woman, needs to find completeness on their own. Two complete people can make a truly beautiful partnership that is, ultimately, about things bigger than either one of their selves.

As has already been noted, incomplete or needy individuals tend to just bounce from one rotten relationship to another.

Is there any truth behind the stereotype that men use love to get sex and women use sex to get love?

And if there is, is it biological or sociological... or some combination.

I don't know.

I think girls are given the message that finding love (a man) is the goal...because alone we're not enough... ride off into the sunset with the man who will...what...save you...from what... complete you... whatever.

the idea that women are to be taken care of by men is sunk deep into many people's psyches...It's not easy to get over.

Some of it is cultural.

But, also, I think some people are trying to make it way more complicated than it is.

Once again, as the one with the potential to get pregnant -- a woman has a lot more at stake when engaging in sex than a man does. Therefore women are, natrually, biologically, tuned more toward companion ship, and less toward just chasing orgasms for kicks.

And ultimately, I don't think it's about "needing a man to be complete" (that's the cultural thing, IMO). It's about it being far more advantagous to have a partner when dealing with the overhwhelming demands infants and children can put on you than not having a partner.

And again, the woman being the one for whom simply walking away from offspring will be more difficult, she has a lot more at stake in that regard.

As far as needing and completeness, I think everybody, man or woman, needs to find completeness on their own. Two complete people can make a truly beautiful partnership that is, ultimately, about things bigger than either one of their selves.

As has already been noted, incomplete or needy individuals tend to just bounce from one rotten relationship to another.

A human female, particularly in the kinds of primitive societies that formed the basis of our evolution, DOES need help and support in raising a human baby. Particularly at the birth, and for the intense period in the weeks and months right after. Now, that doesn't NEED to be a single man, but it does need to be some kind of support network or group.

Thus, that statement that makes conservatives so mad, "It takes a village to raise a child."

Democrats think the glass is half full.Republicans think the glass is theirs.Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.

What I was trying to say before is that I do think it's pretty cool how some people are so good at boundaries... they can easily separate the physical and the emotional. I admire it. But I can't do it. It all becomes one thing for me.

Gonna have to still disagree with the concept of casual sex being foisted as "freedom." Especially for females. As I see it, it's just about the ultimate form of male domination.

That says more about the preconceptions you bring to the table than anything else.

It's simply asking women to think like men -- at least in terms of the male's base sexual urges -- and act accordingly.

Except that the sex drive is already very similar in men and women. I already linked you to the studies showing that and while I'm sure you can find a reason to disregard them, that eventually becomes a matter of "my mind's made up, don't bother me with facts".

Which is the ultimate male fantasy.

First off, that's a massive generalisation. In my experiance, male fantasies tend to be far more varied. Secondly, you seem to be thinking of the madonna/whore dichotomy but you've neglected that the idea of that fantasy was to marry a virgin with the sexual skills of a whore. Thirdly, even if it is the ultimate male fantasy, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong in and of itself.

Hardly "empowering" of females, or good for them, if you ask me. And not ultimately good for males either.

I never argued that it was "empowering", I've never been entirely sure what that means. What I have argued and will again is that men and women should feel free to follow their sex drives (assuming consenting adults, obviously) without feeling ashamed of it. Our societal expectations of appropriate gender behaviour for women (and I'm sorry but what you are arguing is traditional gender behaviour) are mostly societally constructed and they were constructed at a different time when we had much less control of our fertility (and, incidentally, when marriage was mostly about an exchange of property). Those standards no longer apply and so, I think we can safely disregard the societal roles constructed to control them.

If they are set free on what essentially amounts to an endless buffett of easy ass, they won't ever be able to develop their emotional side, I've seen it happen.

No, you have seen a correlation, not necessarily a causation. You know as well as I do that cause and effect cannot be simply assumed like that. I've seen infinitely more damage done by surpressing the sex drive than allowing it more-or-less free reign. The sex drive in men and women is equally strong and equally indiscriminate, I've shown you the studies on that (you can disregard that but know that you'd be doing so simply because it doesn't fit with what you want to think). I understand why you hold that view, you grew up in a different time to me, none of us ever really escape our upbringing and your faith (Baha'i according to your profile) is very different to mine so we're coming at things from entirely different directions. I understand that and that's fine but you can't ask me to disregard sound experimental evidence without presenting me with more convincing opposing evidence. I believe wholeheartedly that humans would be both happier and more psychologically healthy if they followed their sexual instincts (freaks aside).

And that doesn't mean that anyone should do or feel pressured to do anything they feel uncomfortable with. If your sexual instincts say to be celibate or sleep only with the opposite gender, then that's your way and that's fine but it also means that none of us have any business judging someone whose sex drive is more toward casual sex or homo or bisexuality and that is freedom. That doesn't mean emotional dishonesty is acceptable either, btw. Open relationships are fine but cheating isn't. It's just sex, the only rules worth mentioning are so obvious that they don't need mentioning.

I do agree with you about Twilght, but good lord, don't let my wife and step-daughter know... they'd kill me... LOL!

I loathe those books. Badly-written, boring, offensively anti-sex, misogynistic, a central relationship that borders on the abusive and the only likeable character gets turned into a paedophile in the last book. I've watched the first two movies with RiffTrax (alternate soundtrack from the guys behind Mystery Science Theatre 3000) and with the alternate soundtrack, they're hysterical but it seems their only enticing feature normally would be the ravishing scenery.

I loved it too. I still have complete box-sets of both Buffy and Angel on DVD and read the comics. Come to think of it, I don't think Joss Wheedon's done a show I didn't enjoy.

What I was trying to say before is that I do think it's pretty cool how some people are so good at boundaries... they can easily separate the physical and the emotional. I admire it. But I can't do it. It all becomes one thing for me.

If that's what feels right to you, that's fine. That's what it's all about, what feels right for you, not for anyone else.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

That's just it...that's the part I don't understand. It's not about what works for me...maybe it's about wiring or something. I do not understand the concept of just sex. But, like you, I'm very happy that other people have their own way. and whatever works for them.

I loved it too. I still have complete box-sets of both Buffy and Angel on DVD and read the comics. Come to think of it, I don't think Joss Wheedon's done a show I didn't enjoy.

I have been getting and absolutely devouring the seasons, 1 by 1 of buffy. I'm on the last episode of season 5 now... the plan is to finish that, then watch all of angels, then start reading the comic books/novels/graphic novels.

"Gonna have to still disagree with the concept of casual sex being foisted as "freedom." Especially for females. As I see it, it's just about the ultimate form of male domination. It's simply asking women to think like men -- at least in terms of the male's base sexual urges -- and act accordingly. Which is the ultimate male fantasy. Hardly "empowering" of females, or good for them, if you ask me. And not ultimately good for males either."

I think you have a good point. We all grow up in a society but i have yet to meet a woman who really digs casual sex as a lifestyle. And I know alot of women, alot of open, chatty, honest women. I think a woman now and then will point to one or two encounters that were particularly memorable but mostly it is all pretty empty for them.

That doesn't mean that she still won't act on the urge to have causal sex on occasion, for medical purposes. but that natually speaking it is not a lifestyle many would would choose.